Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
Social Software and Cyber Networks:
Ties That Bind or Weak Associations within the Political Organization?
David T. Green and John M. Pearson
Southern Illinois University Carbondale
Department of Management
Carbondale, IL 62901-4627
[email protected] | [email protected]
Recent commentary on this new media is a bit more
varied in its sentiment:
Abstract
The 2004 U.S. Presidential election has tapped into the
online medium to reach the growing demographic of
online citizens. In the Democratic Party’s primary
season, the Howard Dean campaign organization proved
to be phenomenally successful at incorporating the online
medium into its fundraising and grassroots mobilization,
going beyond the online organizing and fundraising
success of campaigns of John McCain in 2000. Both the
Dean and McCain organizations were praised for their
use of the Web to organize at the “grass-roots” level as
well as their accomplishment in raising money. The
current paper examines the unique social network ties
that are created through the use of social software (i.e.
blogs, email, instant messaging, meetup.com), specifically
focusing on its use by political campaigns to engage
potential voters in what could be considered a growing
electronic democracy. Media richness is also taken into
account.
1. Introduction
Social software refers to various, loosely connected
types of applications that allow individuals to
communicate with one another, and to track discussions
across the Web as they happen. Social software is not a
new phenomenon, yet some of the newest uses of this
media have brought both joyful devotion and woeful
disdain.
Venture capitalists are betting millions on Internet
companies that help people capitalize on these networks
of friends. In fall 2003 alone, $24 million was invested in
Friendster, LinkedIn, and Tribe Networks [1]. Allen
Morgan or Mayfield, a venture capital firm says, “Some
liken the investments in social software companies to a
return of the frenzied dot-com deals of 1999.” He
continues, “There are two huge differences: for one,
always-on broadband connections are now commonplace,
making the Internet much more consumer friendly.
Secondly, consumers have adjusted to using the Internet
for “important things, like buying stuff and dating” [1].
”When we use e-mail, instant messaging, Weblogs, and
wikis, we're potentially free to interact with anyone,
anywhere, anytime. But there's a trade off. Our social
protocols map poorly to TCP/IP. Whether the goal is to
help individuals create and share knowledge or to enrich
the relationship networks that support sales, collaboration,
and recruiting, the various kinds of enterprise social
software aim to restore some of the context that's lost
when we move our interaction into the virtual realm.”
-Jon Udell (writer, InfoWorld)
“Joe Trippi, architect of the [Howard] Dean insurgency,
went mining on the Internet and tapped into a mother lode
of youthful discontent. Dean meetups spread across the
country, much as be-ins and sit-ins had in other eras -only the meetups were a lot nerdier, and Web-driven
contributions poured in.”
-Ciro Scotti (editor, Business Week Online).”
The above quotes are contrary to the uneasiness that
exists among academicians from multiple disciplines over
the fear that society’s fascination with all-things Internet
is harming the way in which humans have relationships,
develop community, build and strengthen ties in our
social networks, and simply live. The downfall of real
community and relationships has been promoted by
sociologists as well as the anti-technology crowd.
The question over loss of community is not a new one;
the Internet has simply added fodder for the discussion.
Technology has always had a bad name in its expectation
for negatively affecting society [47, 48, 49]. Wellman and
Leighton [63] note the century of sociological debate that
has taken place over whether community has become lost,
saved, or liberated since the Industrial Revolution.
Whitworth and de Moor [64] dispute that belief, declaring
that a community is not just a set of individuals, but a
form of self-sustaining social interaction that endures, and
that social interaction can make use of several different
channels, including the online medium.
This is more than a one-side debate. The Internet and
related technologies have also been propagated as the
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
1
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
savior of our society by some, purportedly bringing
people together in a variety of ways. The positive
attributes of the Internet can be felt in our ability to
communicate. Businesses, dating services, public interest
organizations, clubs, and other like-minded groups have
benefited from the explosion of social software over the
past decade, but the paradigm that has best demonstrated
social software’s “coming of age” is that of U.S.
Presidential politics.
The Internet also allows citizens to communicate
across the country and the world, creating the sense of
community and social connectedness to revitalize
democracy [34, 54, 57]. Although utopian, the idea that
the Internet may revitalize democracy has some giddy
with anticipation while others wholly dismiss the idea.
This paper attempts to draw on the example of social
software use in politics to demonstrate the potential
successes and pitfalls that may occur through its
deployment. The next section of the paper examines the
social software phenomena by detailing some of the
specific software that has played a role in online politics.
The paper continues with a look at the application of
social software in US Presidential campaigns. The paper
then concludes with the development of several
propositions that, based on our political example,
addresses media richness of social software, the strength
of ties developed through these channels, and the
resulting networks that are shaped.
2. Social software
Social software is any software that supports group
communications. The dynamics of social software are
significantly different from traditional interactions. Social
software allows emergent behavior to control the content
of the information created. Individuals create the content,
but other individuals read that content and look for
information about particular topics. Critics scorn that all
software is social and that collaboration and community
are at the very heart of the internet, both its origins and its
uses, but we do know that social software works for
newcomers to the Internet: people wanting to build local
knowledge, maintain long-distance family ties, coordinate
clubs or societies, and share knowledge around offices.
Social software is the opposite of what groupware and
other project- or organization-oriented collaboration tools
were intended to be. Social software is based on
supporting the desire of individuals to be pulled into
groups to achieve their personal goals. The groupware
approach places people into groups defined
organizationally or functionally.
Most social software applications are grounded in the
view that online social interaction is not a substitute for
traditional face-to-face interaction but can potentially
enhance it. For the most part, people do not use the
Internet to interact with strangers: they e-mail people they
already know or maintain weblogs for their friends,
families and associates to read. Social software is also not
about bridging huge distances or creating new
connections. E-mail and instant messaging are constantly
used within organizations to connect people who are
sitting a couple desks away [62].
Arnold [2] describes social software as less of a
revolution and more of an evolution. For example, many
of the elements in social software are familiar: instant
messaging, chat, electronic mail, bulletin boards, and
listservs. Some of the less familiar elements include
Weblogs, RSS, networking, and meetup software. The
next section details some of types of social software
(Table-1).
Table 1. Conversational technologies
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
E-mail
Static and database-backed web pages
Discussion forum
Internet chat/instant messaging
Video and audio streaming
Video and audio conferencing
Weblog (“blog”)
Wiki
RSS
2.1. Weblogs
A Weblog is a personal web page, kept by the author in
reverse chronological diary form [4]. Bloggers are the
authors who write Weblogs (i.e. “blogs”), which might be
described as an online diary. Entries are often uploaded
multiple times a day. Entries in blogs often stay within a
certain theme and often link to other blogs, creating a
unique mass communications environment [31].
Figure 1. Blog for America
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
2
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
Like other media operators, bloggers tend to
believe strongly in their tool. Unlike other media,
blogs do not command a consistent or large
readership. Except for the approximately top 0.001
percent of weblogs, blogs get traffic referrals from
other blogs [31]. Weblogs provide an example of the
social connections that can develop online.
According to figures from a Blue Coat Systems Inc.
survey, only 36 percent of U.S. companies currently allow
workers to use instant messaging. Aside from security
concerns, this modest mode of communication is bringing
out some surprisingly bad behavior from employees. The
top ten instant message offenses are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Top IM offenses in the workplace
2.2. Email
The first e-mail was sent around 1970 and by 2003
more than 100 million households in the U.S. alone had email addresses [24]. Electronic mail, or e-mail is most
often used as a one-to-one or one-to-many conversation
tool and is the most essential IT based communication
technology. In fact, e-mail is the most widely used
communication tool after the telephone. According to a
2003 American Management Association report, "Email
Rules, Policies, and Practices Survey," the average time
spent working on email per day is one hour, 47 minutes.
What's more, 31 percent of respondents said that they
spend more than two hours a day on email [16]. Another
study reports that 80 percent of business people prefer
email for work-related communication. The reasons for
preferring email over the phone include response
flexibility, easy communication with multiple parties,
paper trail, faster communication and easier global
communications [35].
Recent research suggests that e-mail exchanges build
trust more slowly than other forms of communication —
but now a Cornell University study argues that the
opposite should be true, because people are considerably
more likely to lie over the phone and in face-to-face
conversation than in e-mail [41]. The one glaring problem
with e-mail is the continuing problem of spam. As spam
increases, users are less likely to rely on e-mail [31].
Whether or not this forecast is accurate, e-mail has
changed the way networks of people develop and are
maintained.
2.3. Instant Messaging/ Chat
Instant messaging enables conversation modes from
one-to-many to many-to-many and has been promoted
through several free services including AOL, ICQ and
Yahoo. IDC estimates that more than 400 million
messaging accounts have been created, a majority for
individual communication outside of the business setting
[61].
According to filtering technology firm Secure Control,
around 40% of employees at UK companies use instant
messaging systems while in the office. Many use it
because it is faster for communicating with colleagues
than e-mail but, in the same survey, 31% used instant
messaging to send messages to friends in order to avoid
sending private messages via the corporate e-mail system.
1. Gossiping about a colleague 77.8%
2. Commenting on senior management 63.9%
3. Making a negative comment about a customer 51.7%
4. Sharing work files 51.7%
5. Speaking about wanting to leave their job 48.9%
6. Discussing pay 48.3%
7. Using abusive language 42.8%
8. Using IM to conspire with a colleague while on a conference
call 37.8%
9. Sharing music or video files 35.6%
10. Making sexual advances 29.4%
[34]
Instant messaging and chat allow for a real-time
communication with others. Its ability to support existing
networks and create new networks is evident in its wide
range of uses from friend and family communication to
sexual, criminal, and terrorist exploitation.
2.4. Wikis
Developer Ward Cunningham named the “Wiki” for
the Hawaiian word wikiwiki, meaning “quick.” The Wiki
allows for rapid generation of new Web pages through a
simple scripting language [60].
A Wiki is a
collaboratively created and iteratively improved set of
web pages, together with the software that manages the
web pages. It is a multi-user system that allows any user
to modify any other user’s web pages (unless specifically
limited by access right settings) [62].
Wagner [62] concludes that organizations willing to
embrace the “Wiki way” with collaborative
conversational knowledge management systems, may
enjoy better than linear knowledge growth while being
able to satisfy ad-hoc, distributed knowledge needs. Wiki
software runs on a server and lets users create and edit
Web page content using any browser. Wiki software
captures the informal but often critical forms of
conversation such as those that might occur around the
water cooler [21].
Wikis are different from weblogs and more akin to
open-source software in that wiki let their users create
new categories of information and allow editing of other
people’s comments. A blog records the decision making
process while a wiki will usually have the final decision
recorded, not the work that went into reaching agreement
[60].
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
3
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
2.5. RSS
RSS is an acronym for rich site summary, an XMLbased format for syndicated Web content. XML.com
states that “RSS is a format for syndicating news and the
content of news-like sites (e.g. Wired), news-oriented
community sites (e.g. Slashdot), and personal weblogs.”
Most anything that can be broken down into discrete
items can be syndicated via RSS, including the "recent
changes" page of a Wiki. When in RSS format, an RSSaware program can check the feed for changes and react
to the changes in an appropriate way.
messages and responses are grouped together and are easy
to find. A discussion board user posts a comment,
question, or reply, then waits for others to respond to their
post. These conversations are many-to-many, frequently
with threaded discussions. Ezboard.com is one of the
largest online community hosts with over one million
communities using its site and related forums.
Table 3. RSS 2.0 feed from Howard Dean website
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdfsyntax-ns#">
- <channel>
<title>Blog for America</title>
<link>http://www.blogforamerica.com/</link>
<description>The Official Democracy for America Weblog</description>
<dc:language>en-us</dc:language>
<dc:creator>Blog for America</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2004-05-13T08:38:55-05:00</dc:date>
<admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.movabletype.org/?v=3.0d1" />
<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
<sy:updateBase>2000-01-01T12:00+00:00</sy:updateBase>
- <item>
<title>A Message from Gov. Dean</title>
<link>http://www.blogforamerica.com/archives/004433.html</link>
- <description>
- <![CDATA[
<p>By now you have seen I hope, the first dozen grassroots candidates DFA is
supporting. There will be many dozen more. These candidates have been proposed
by DFA folks at Meetups and on conference calls. They have been looked at
carefully by the Burlington staff, and they represent all the best personal and
policy values of the Democracy for America campaign. Many of them worked in the
Presidential campaign as volunteers, none of them are incumbents, and all
challenge the status quo in politics! </p>
Figure 2. Howard Dean website RSS
<p>For a few weeks, a lot of DFA activists have wanted me to suggest something
concrete to do. This is the start. Each of these campaigns is well worth working
on and contributing to. If they are in your state, work for them. If not, send
them a donation, or wait until two weeks from now when the next list comes out.
There are over 600 candidates, including some great incumbents, who want to change
this country, in nearly every state, and we will do our best to shine a spotlight
on all of them.</p>
<p>I also want to thank you again for your loyalty to change. It has been alot
of work to transition from a presidential organization to an organization which is
using all we learned to continue to try to change this country by getting a lot of
previously disillusioned or disinterested folks back into the political process
by having us all stick together and speak out for real change, and against this
administration's penchant for taking from ordinary Americans and giving to their
cronies. I deeply appreciate that you hung in there while we made that
change.</p>
]]>
</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">4433@http://www.blogforamerica.com/</guid>
<dc:subject>Howard's Posts</dc:subject>
<dc:creator>Howard Dean</dc:creator>
<dc:date>2004-05-13T08:38:55-05:00</dc:date>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
RSS-aware programs are sometimes called news
aggregators and are popular in the weblogging
community. Many weblogs make content available in
RSS, allowing you to easily keep up with weblogs you
enjoy by checking their RSS feeds and displaying any
new items [51].
Figure 3. Dean’s meetup.com website
2.6. Discussion Forums
Discussion forums are important in the online
communication of knowledge and is the core technology
for many online communities. Discussion forums are
asynchronous online tools that capture the exchange of
messages over time, sometimes over a period of days,
weeks, or even months. Threaded discussion forums are
organized into categories so that the exchange of
2.7. Networking Websites
Social networking software connects people together
based on similar or desired interests. Sites such have
Friendster and Meetup have become dominant forces in
this field. Meetup.com helps people get together with a
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
4
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
group of neighbors that share a common interest. Meetup
is an advanced technology platform and global network of
local venues that helps people self-organize local group
gatherings on the same day everywhere. Meetups take
place in up to 634 cities in 58 countries at local cafés,
restaurants, bookstores, and other local establishments.
Meetup has taken social networks from existing purely
online to having the ability to meet face-to-face.
Next we will take a closer look at the online political
organization and how Howard Dean’s organization was
the first to successfully utilize the multiple types of social
software, such as Meetup.com, to build a large “grass
roots” organization and go from obscurity to frontrunner
in a presidential primary race.
3. Social software in presidential politics
The increasing use of the Web for political information
and persuasion has been well documented (11, 12, 40].
Internet users are often believed to be “isolated geeks’ yet
recent studies have found Internet users to be model
citizens for the most part, having high levels of selfefficacy [3], the belief that one has the power to manage
prospective situations, which in turn could be their belief
that they can influence government officials and the
political process [5].
Those with high self-efficacy are more involved in
politics and consequently more likely to vote and engage
in other political activities [52]. Internet users are also
more politically interested [33] and are more likely to
vote than the general public [29, 38]. Although they
express confidence in their power to influence
government, Internet users do not believe in the
government’s ability to carry out policies, and report high
levels of political distrust [33, 38].
By the 1996 and 1998 political campaigns, Internetbased politics had moved from a fuzzy fantasy world to
the mainstream. One study of the 1996 U.S. elections
found 75% of candidate sites used interactive features,
such as e-mail addresses, on their sites [11], but none of
the candidates at that time used the Internet to have public
discussion with citizens. Kamarack’s [37] analysis of the
1998 U.S. senatorial and gubernatorial races found most
sites in the form of “brochure-ware”, simply informative
pamphlets in electronic form. Only a small number of
candidates with Web sites solicited online donations [25].
During the 1996 presidential election all of the major
presidential candidates had Web sites. The Pew Research
Center found that approximately 20 million Americans
(12% of the voting population) used the Internet to keep
up with the campaign, and 2% listed the Internet as their
primary source of political information [45]. The 2000
presidential election, for the first time, saw the Web as an
important tool for candidates to raise campaign money
and sign up volunteers [32].
In many ways the 2000 election provided a platform for
political actors to experiment with new modes of
communication. The Web also provided novel ways for
citizens and other actors to engage in the electoral process
with particular emphasis on information gather,
production, and distribution. The Web also facilitated new
organizational possibilities, contributing to a potential
shift in the “structure of political opportunities” that may
have allowed significant social or political change to
flourish [15, 17].
The dominant conclusion of both users and
contemporaneous scholars was that computer networking
technology had the potential to dramatically alter the
nature and shape of political discourse, and of democracy
itself, by engaging and energizing new participants in the
political process [20, 42]. The overwhelming example of
success in this venue was Howard Dean in his bid for the
2004 Democratic Party Presidential nomination.
Howard Dean's prominence among the nine Democrats
running for president was largely attributable to his
campaign's early embrace of the Internet for organizing
supporters and raising money. Even Dean’s opponents
conceded that he was the “first politician to take full
advantage of the self-organizing networks of supports that
sites like Meetup.com and Web loggers can provide [44].”
The Meetup.com site suggests that over 180,000 people
registered for Dean get-togethers through its site.
Meetup.com was founded in 2002 as a Web site for
strangers in the same area to meet and share common
interests. Scott Heiferman, the chief executive, said: "We
never thought it would be used for politics. We figured
we would attract Lord of the Rings geeks and poodle
owners."
Dean’s Democratic presidential campaign focused
attention on this emerging category of social software.
Dean’s campaign used Meetup and Weblogs to generate
more than $40 million in contributions. Dean also
employed SocialText software and 400 volunteers for
decentralized news analysis, clipping and annotating
blogs, and traditional media posts. SocialText marries
several social software precepts: the Wiki information
store, automated authenticated blog generation and RSS
output
for
change
notification.
SocialText’s
recategorization technology allows for broadcasting posts
to multiple blogs and thereforeRSS streams [21]. Dean
also utilized other social software techniques through the
following online channels: (1) Dean asked people to signup through Web site registration or petitions. The Dean
campaign prominently asked people to sign up for updates
or join petitions, requesting minimal information so the
process was easy and fast for constituents. (2) Regular
email was sent with compelling and consistent messaging.
For example, Dean emailed more than 1.5 million
messages in June 2003. Regular email communications
seem to have impact if the content is relevant and
reinforces key messages. (3) He gave constituents a voice.
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
5
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
Whether actual or just perceived, his supporters felt they
had a “voice”. Dean created a dialogue with constituents
through online surveys, polls and petitions, and he also
used weblogs. Giving the supporters a voice which
fostered engagement and inclination to contribute. (4)
The organization actively asked people to forward
messages; some call this “viral marketing”. (5) His
communication created urgency within his supporters.
Howard Dean’s success has spawned an open-source
political discourse. Howard Dean’s DeanSpace is free
software that helps those in campaigns. The DeanSpace
Web site lists what is included in the package. “It has a lot
of nice community functions -- blogs, forums, photo
galleries -- and it also has some features that apply
specifically to campaigning. It has volunteer list
management, voterfile integration, and the ability to
easily and powerfully link your site with the official Dean
campaign as well as other DeanSpace communities
[http://www.deanspace.org/about].”
Howard Dean employed a variety of social software.
Critics will say that Dean was not a success because his
frontrunner status did not get him votes. We must
remember there were a number of external factors and
current events that effect citizens eventual vote. Although
he did not successfully win his party’s nomination, we
can not call his use of the Internet a failure. We must ask
ourselves if we would have talked about Howard Dean at
all if he had not employed a strategic campaign online.
Might he have been a Dennis Kucinich, another
Democratic presidential candidate who received nothing
of the same publicity, organization, or support as that of
Dean, although having similar ideologies and starting
from a similar point of national obscurity. Some suggest
that the Internet tends to attract those who are
disconnected from the traditional political parties and are
thus more independent or libertarian than nonusers [38].
Dean successfully tapped into that market, although it
may not have been quite as large a following as it
appeared in mass media or perhaps the Dean supporters
were simply louder than the rest.
In his weblog at Corante, a “blogger’ named Clay
comments on Dean, “We know well from past attempts to
use social software to organize groups for political change
that it is hard, very hard, because participation in online
communities often provides a sense of satisfaction that
actually dampens a willingness to interact with the real
world. When you’re communing with like-minded souls,
you feel like you’re accomplishing something by arguing
out the smallest details of your perfect future world, while
the imperfect and actual world takes no notice, as is its
custom” [7].
Whatever your opinion of Howard Dean, it is easy to
observe that his use of social software helped tie distant
and separate people together in a social network that
accomplished quite a bit. Next, we discuss the nature of
ties within a network and the richness of the media being
used to start, build, and strengthen those ties.
4. Strength of ties in networks
What are the implications of maintaining and forming
interpersonal relationships online? Wellman and Hampton
[62] remind us we must remember that communities are
based on social exchanges rather than on spatial
proximity. Whether online or offline, communities are
networks, and not neatly organized into little
neighborhood boxes. These networks furnish opportunity
to find resources in various social circles, maneuverability
to avoid the nature of being a single network member, and
the uncertainty that stems from the limited scope, low
density, and porous boundaries of any one network.
Some thinkers argue that social networks of friends,
family, colleagues and acquaintances are one of our most
important resources. Social networks are where we get
our advice or job connections, but they are also where we
turn when we need emotional support or a sense of
belonging. This is important to organizations in that
organizations that are rich in social capital, the
institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the
quality and quantity of a society's social interactions, are
finding it easier to collaborate on joint projects and are
less likely to experience individuals “free-riding” on the
efforts of others. The result is higher levels of economic
vitality, trust and happiness [10]. Putnam documented the
decline of social capital in the U.S. since the 1960s, while
Fukuyama [18] noted the same. Few people get together
in voluntary organizations, and there is uneven access to
social capital in different neighborhoods, cities, and
states. Putnam posits that there is a turn toward social
networks, moving away from group participation.
Wellman [57] believes that the Internet’s incorporation
into everyday life increases North Americans’ stock of
social capital. Wellman concludes that the Internet’s
design can usefully account for important social
phenomena, including users’ characteristics like gender
and skills, social relationships (strong/weak ties and
specialized/broad ties), structural positions, social
network structure (densely knit and loosely bounded), and
social network composition.
5. Media richness
Computer networks (e.g. the Internet and foundation
for social software) are the infrastructure of social
networks. Research has shown that the Internet provides a
medium that tends to satisfy entertainment, escape, and
social interaction needs [14, 17, 39, 50]. Media richness
theory provides a lens through which we can view this
social interaction.
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
6
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
Media richness theory proposes that media differ in the
ability to facilitate changes in understanding among
communicators
[8].
For
example,
face-to-face
communication is richer (can better facilitate changes in
understanding) than written memos [36]. Several studies
have suggested that managers will be more effective and
efficient when richer media are used for equivocal tasks
and leaner media are used for less equivocal tasks [8, 9,
30].
Kahai [36] notes the popularity of media richness
theory, yet its limited track record in supporting its own
propositions. With traditional media (e.g. face-to-face,
telephone, and written memos) media richness theory has
performed as expected, but studies including new media
(e.g. voice mail, e-mail, and videoconferencing) have
shown interesting results [8, 19, 55, 56]. Computermediated communication has been shown to support
emotional, nuanced, and complex interactions,
contradicting early fears that it would be useful only for
simple, instrumental changes [13, 46].
Studies have shown that pairs add media to their
repertoire in an ordered sequence according to tie
strength, starting with the group-wide medium and then
adding other media [26, 27 28]. Guttman scaling showed
conformity to a unidimensional scale, showing media is
added in this order: unscheduled face-to-face meetings,
scheduled meetings, e-mail, and then “other media (e.g.,
telephone, videoconferencing, fax), with the latter
category used only by the most strongly tied
communicators.
Could the strength of ties that begin online in a less rich
communication channel start at a weaker point than those
that begin face-to-face or richer communication channel?
A further examination of the strength of ties is warranted.
6. Strong, weak, and latent ties
A tie is said to exist between communicators wherever
they exchange or share resources such as goods, services,
social support or information. Strength of a tie is normally
assessed by looking at a combination of factors;
frequency of contact, duration of the association, intimacy
of the tie, provision of reciprocal services, and kinship
have been used as measures of tie strength [43]. The
degree of overlap of two individuals’ friendship networks
varies directly with the strength of their tie to one another
[22].
Haythornthwaite [27] argues that where ties are strong,
communicators can influence each other to adapt and
expand their use of media to support the exchanges
important to their tie, but where ties are weak,
communicators are dependent on common organizational
established means of communication and protocols
established by others.
Haythornthwaite [27] posited that when moving from
offline ties to online ties some assumptions remain
important: (1) the characteristics of ties hold in the
mediated environments as they do in the offline
environment, (2) online exchanges are as real in terms of
their impact on the ties as are offline exchanges, and (3) it
is the tie that drives the number and types of exchanges,
not whether the ties is maintained on or offline, or via any
combination of the two. Just like offline ties, online ties
are expected to be stronger when they show greater
varieties of interaction and exchange or closer to the
extent that they exchange emotional support.
Social software have developed settings to initiate new
contacts, suggesting a different level of tie, a latent tie. A
latent tie is described as a tie for which a connection is
available technically but that has not yet been activated by
social interaction. Social software adds means and
opportunities for previously unconnected others to
communicate, resulting in positive effects on weak ties
and weak-tie networks, in particular by laying an
infrastructure of latent ties (ones that exist technically but
have not yet been activitated) [27].
Table 4. Attributes of latent ties
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Connection is available technically
Not yet activated by social interaction
Can be formed by computer or noncomputer means
(email lists, web communities)
Not established by individuals
Is established by the organization, the community, or
the administrators
Sproul and Kiesler [58, 59] suggested that the reduced
cues of computer-mediated communication (CMC) work
to the advantage of weak ties by reducing the social risks
associated with contacting unknown and unnumbered
others.
Based on Haythornthwaite [27], it appears that latent
ties initiated online can develop into weak ties, and
subsequently, strong ties. Going back to our political
example, it is the weak and strong ties that are desired by
the political organization because the strength of the tie
can determine the level of commitment and support for
maintaining the tie (Figure 4).
Latent
Ties
Weak Ties
Strong
Ties
Figure 4. Development of ties [27]
Proposition 1: Latent ties initiated online will develop
into weak ties, and subsequently, strong ties through the
continued and frequent use of a variety of social software,
thus,
Proposition 2: The use of multiple types of social software
in communications presents a setting where ties can form.
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
7
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
Latent ties can be initiated fairly easily (e.g. ListServs,
discussion boards, and newsgroups), building ties that
would have likely never been developed otherwise. A
conclusion can be drawn that those in a tie are more
committed to the relationship and provide the best
opportunity for organizations (i.e. political groups) to get
the grass-roots supporters and dedicated workers it needs
to mount a campaign.
Proposition 3: The Internet provides both political, as
well as most other organizations, a quick, easy, and
economical way to build ties.
The most basic of social software, e-mail, has been
cited as reducing the “social overhead” inherent in
beginning a relationship [27], supporting the notion of the
ease of initiating online latent ties.
The richness of media helps determine the initial tie
development [27]. Marsden and Campbell [43] found that
“closeness” or emotional intensity of a relationship is on
balance the best indicator of the concept of tie strength
that we have. Research has shown that weaker, more
casual friendships or work relationships engage in fewer,
less intimate exchanges and share fewer types of
information and support than those reporting stronger
relationships. With more strongly tied pairs including in
their exchanges a higher level of intimacy, more selfdisclosure, emotional as well as instrumental exchanges,
reciprocity in exchanges, and more frequent interaction
[23, 26, 43].
may never have face-to-face communication. Could the
ability of social software to bring diverse people into
relationships with others they may have never otherwise
have met, negate the adverse effects of weak
communication channels. In other words, these
relationships and resulting networks that are being created
online would not exist, thus,
Proposition 7: Solely online ties may take ‘longer’ and
more frequent interaction to develop into strong ties than
those relationships that are initiate in a face-to-face
setting (Proposition 7) (Figure 5).
Proposition 8: Media richness helps determine the speed
at which ties can develop and strengthen over time.
Proposition 9: Richer rather than leaner media provide
the better setting in which latent ties can more quickly
develop into weak ties.
Proposition 10: Richer rather than leaner media provide
the better setting in which weak ties can more quickly
develop into strong ties.
Figure 5. Strength of ties
Ties Initiated Online
Ties Initiated Face-to-Face
Asynchronous
Communication
(Web
Communities,
Weblogs,
Discussion Board,
ListServ)
Weaker
Ties
Proposition 4: Media richness helps determine the
development of ties.
Proposition 5: Richer rather than leaner media provide
the best setting in which latent ties can develop into weak
ties.
Proposition 6: Richer rather than leaner media provide
the best setting in which weak ties can develop into strong
ties.
Again, the key assumption is that the characteristics of
ties hold in the mediated environments as they do in the
offline environment. The social support given online is an
exchange that adds to maintaining the tie, and is not
neutral. Support for this assumption is found in the many
studies that have found ties to flourish when supported by
online information exchange, social support, work
interaction and play [28].
Each of the Granovetter and Haythornthwaite studies
assume these ties to be in a supporting role and not
initiated and primarily online. The advent of Web-based
social software has brought about new types of
relationships, both synchronous and asynchronous that
Unscheduled face-toface meetings
Scheduled Meetings
Strength
of Ties
Synchronous
Communication
(Instant
Messaging/Chat)
Video/Audio
Streaming
E-Mail
“Other Media”
(telephone,
videoconferencing, fax)
Networking
Software (e.g.
Meetup.com)
Stronger
Ties
7. Conclusion
This paper has drawn on the example of social software
to illustrate the opportunities that are available in the
online medium as well as the cautions that must be
adhered to. Media richness and social networking theory
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
8
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
were illustrated through the example of U.S. presidential
politics. There have been great successes and continue to
be huge limitations to these media but the evolving nature
of software development continue to improve the
communication channels of the Internet.
This paper is useful for political organizations such as
those complex political organizations during U.S.
presidential elections that attempt to develop some form
of tie (Proposition 1-2) among potential voters to gain
votes, monetary contributions, and/or volunteer support.
The prevalence of social software now affords
presidential candidates the forum through which a
message can diffuse quickly and economically
(Proposition 3). Within the variety of social software that
are available, the level of media richness that each offers
is expected to directly impact the ability of the candidate
to develop a ties as well as strengthen existing ties
(Proposition 4-10).
The political organization is just one of many examples
that could be followed to illustrate that use of social
software to tie people together. Howard Dean, although
unsuccessful to win the Democratic party nomination for
President of the U.S., used social software in a
revolutionary way to develop network ties. This relatively
new integration of social network theory and the Internet
has immense opportunities for further research. This
paper has attempted to be a stepping stone upon which
more detailed and potentially empirical work can be
conducted on networking through social software.
8. References
1.
Aragon, L. (2003). Mayfield Ushers Tribe Into Social Software
Schmoozefest. Private Equity Week, 10(45).
2. Arnold, S. E. (2003). Social Software. Searcher, 11(9), 30-31.
3. Bandura, A. (1986). Social Foundations of Thought and Action: A
Social Cognitive Theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
4. Barger, J. (1997). Weblog Resources FAQ. Robot Wisdom Weblog,
http://www.destinationkm.com/articles/default.asp?ArticleID=801.
5. Bonchek, M. S. (1997). From Broadcast to Netcast: The Internet
and the Flow of Political Information. Unpublished Unpublished
Doctoral Dissertation, Harvard University, MA.
6. Carlson, J. R., & Zmud, R. W. (1999). Channel Expansion Theory
and the Experiential Nature of Media Richness Perceptions.
Academy of Management Journal, 42(2), 153-170.
7. Clay. (2004). Is Social Software Bad for the Dean Campaign?
[Weblog]. Corante. Retrieved April 29, 2004, from the World
Wide Web:
http://www.corante.com/many/archives/2004/01/26/is_social_soft
ware_bad_for_the_dean_campaign.php
8. Daft, R., & Lengel, R. (1986). Organizational Information
Requirements, Media Richness and Structural Design.
Management Science, 32(2), 554-571.
9. Daft, R., Lengel, R., & Trevino, L. (1987). Message Equivocality,
Media Selection, and Manager Performance: Implications for
Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 11(3), 1-22.Davis, R. (1999).
The We of Politics: The Internet's Impact on the American
Political System. New York: Oxford University Press.
10. Davies, W. (2003). Welcome Social Software. Computer Weekly,
37.
11. Davis, R. (1999). The We of Politics: The Internet's Impact on the
American Political System. New York: Oxford University Press.
12. Davis, R., & Owen, D. (1998). New Media and American Politics.
New York: Oxford University Press.
13. Donath, J. (1998). Identity and Deception in the Virtual
Community. In M. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities in
Cyberspace (pp. 3-24). London: Routledge.
14. Eighmey, J. (1997). Profiling User Responses to Commercial Web
Sites. Journal of Advertising Research, 37, 373-399.
15. Eisinger, P. K. (1973). The Conditions of Protest Behavior in
American Cities. American Political Science Revie, 67(1), 11-28.
16. Email to Excess. (2003a, Nov 2003). T & D, 57, 21.
17. Ferguson, D. A., & Perse, E. M. (2000). The World Wide Web as a
Functional Alternative to Television. Journal of Broadcasting &
Electronic Media, 44, 155-174.
18. Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation
of Prosperity. New York: Simon & Schuster.
19. Fulk, J., & Boyd, B. (1991). Emerging Theories of Communication
in Organizations. Journal of Management, 17(2), 407-446.
20. Garramone, G. M., Harris, A. C., & Anderson, R. (1986).
Predictors of Motivation to Use Computer-Mediated Political
Communication Systems. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 30(3), 445-457.
21. Gillmore, S. (2004). Weaving Social Nets. eWeek.
22. Granovetter, M. (1973). The Strength of Weak Ties. The American
Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
23. Granovetter, M. (1982). The Strength of Weak Ties: A Network
Theory Revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N.Lin (Eds.), Social
Structure and Network Analysis (pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
24. Harmon, A. (2003, Jan. 14). Resignation May Help Ground a
Visionary Medium. The New York Times.
25. Harpham, E. J. (1999, September). Going On-line: The 1998
Congressional Campaign. Paper presented at the Proceedings from
the American Political Science Association, Atlanta, GA.
26. Haythornthwaite, C. (1996). Social Network Analysis: An
approach and Technique for the Study of Information Exchange.
Library and Information Science Research, 18, 323-342.
27. Haythornthwaite, C. (2002). Strong, Weak, and Latent Ties and the
Impact of New Media. The Information Society, 18, 385-401.
28. Haythornthwaite, C., Kazmer, M. M., Ronbs, J., & Shoemaker, S.
(2000). Community Development Among Distance Learners:
Temporal and Technological Dimensions. 6(1).
29. Hill, K. A., & Hughes, J. E. (1998). Cyberpolitics: Citizen
Activism in the Age of the Internet. Lanham, MD: Rowman &
Littlefield.
30. Hollingshead, A. B., McGrath, J. E., & O'Connor, K. M. (1993).
Group Task Performance and Communication Technology. Small
Group Research, 24(3), 307-333.
31. Hurst, M. (2004). E-mail and ease of use: a preferred method of
mass communication with Internet users. Interactions, 11:2, 55-56.
32. James, F. (2000, February 11, 2000). E-campaigns Grow Up:
McCain Makes Especially Adroit Use of the internet to Raise Cash
and Volunteers. Chicago Tribune, pp. 3.
33. Johnson, T. J., & Kaye, B. K. (1998). The Internet: Vehicle for
Engagement or a Haven for the Disaffected? In T. J. Johnson & C.
E. Hays & S. P. Hays (Eds.), Engaging the Public: How the
Government and Media Can Reinvigorate American Democracy
(pp. 123-135). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
34. Jones, S. G. (1995). CyberSociety: Computer-Mediated
Communication and Community. Thousand Oaks, CA: Erlbaum.
35. Just Email Me. (2003b). T & D, 57(8), 24.
36. Kahai, S. S. (2003). Exploring the Core Concepts of Media
Richness Theory: The Impact of Cue Multiplicity and Feedback
Immediacy on Decision Quality. Journal of management
Information Systems, 20(1), 263-299.
37. Kamarck, E. C. (1999). Campaigning on the Internet in the
Elections of 1998. In E. C. Kamarck & J. J. S. Nye (Eds.),
democracy.com?: Governance in the Network World (pp. 99-123).
Hollis, NH: Hollis Publishing.
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
9
Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences - 2005
38. Katz, J. (1997). The Digital Citizen. Wired, 5, 72.
39. Kaye, B. K. (1998). Uses and Gratifications of the World Wide
Web: From Couch Potato to Web Potato. The New Jersey Journal
of Communication, 6(1), 21-40.
40. Kilinenberg, E., & Perrin, A. (2000). Symbolic Politics in the
Information Age: The 1996 Republican Presidential Campaigns in
Cyberspace. Information, Communication, & Society, 3(1), 17-38.
41. Lies, Damn Lies, and Email. (2004, May 2004). Atlantic Monthly,
293, 44.
42. Margolis, M., & Resnick, D. (2000). Politics as Usual: The
Cyberspace Revolution. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
43. Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring Tie
Strength. Social Forces, 63, 482-501.
44. McCullagh, D. (2004). The Cyberbrains Behind Howard Dean [Ezine]. CNET News.com. Retrieved April 20, 2004, from the World
Wide Web: http://news.com.com/2102-1028_35142066.html?tag=st.util.print
45. News Attracts Most Internet Users (1996). Pew Research Center.
Retrieved April, 24, 2004, from the World Wide Web:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=117
46. O'Brien, J. (1998). Writing in the Body: Gender (Re)production in
Online Interaction. In M. Smith & P. Kollock (Eds.), Communities
in Cyberspace (pp. 76-104). London: Routledge.
47. Ogburn, W. F. (1922). Social Change: With Respect to Culture
and Original Nature. New York: Huebsch.
48. Ogburn, W. F. (1950). Social Evolution Reconsidered. In W. F.
Ogburn (Ed.), Social Change (pp. 369-393). New York: Viking.
49. Ogburn, W. F., & Nimkoff, M. F. (1955). Technology and the
Changing Family. Boston: Houghton: Mifflin.
50. Papacharissi, Z., & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet
Use. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 44, 175-196.
51. Pilgrim, M. (2002). What is RSS. XML.com. Retrieved April 29,
2004, from the World Wide Web:
http://www.xml.com/pub/a/2002/12/18/dive-into-xml.html
52. Pinkleton, B., & Austin, E. W. (1998). Media and Participation:
Breaking the Spiral of Disaffection. In T. J. Johnson & C. E. Hays
& S. P. Hays (Eds.), Engagin the Public: How Government and the
Media Can Reinvigorate American Democracy (pp. 75-86).
Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
53. Pinkleton, B., Austin, E. W., & Johnson, K. K. (1996).
Relationships of Political Disaffection, Voter Sophistication, and
Information Seeking to External Efficacy and Political Behavior.
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International
Communication Association, Chicago.
54. Rheingold, H. (1993). The Virtual Community: Homesteading on
the Electronic Frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
55. Rice, R. E., D'Ambra, J. D., & More, E. (1998). Cross-Cultural
Comparison of Organizational Media Evaluation and Choice.
Journal of Communication, 48(3), 3-26.
56. Rice, R. E., & Shook, D. E. (1990). Relationships of Job
Categories and Organizational Levels to Use of Communication
Channels, including Electronic Mail: A Meta-Analysis and
Extension. Journal of Management Studies, 27(2), 195-229.
57. Schwartz, E. (1995). Looking for Community on the Internet.
National Civic Review, 84, 37-41.
58. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing Social Context Cues:
Electronic Mail in Organizational Computing. Managemen
Science, 32(11), 1492-1512.
59. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1991). Connections: New Ways of
Working in the Networked Organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
60. Tepper, M. (2003). The Rise of Social Software. NetWorker
Magazine.
61. Wagner, C. (2004). Wiki: A Technology for Controversational
Knowledge Management and Group Collaboration.
Communications of the Association for Information Systems, 13,
265-289.
62. Wellman, B., & Hampton, K. (1999). Living Networked One and
Offline. Contemporary Sociology, 28(6), 648-654.
63. Wellman, B., & Leighton, B. (1979). Networks, Neighborhoods
and Communities. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 14(363-390).
64. Whitworth, B., & deMoor, A. (2003). Legitimate by Design:
Towards Trusted Virtual Community Environments. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 22(1), 31-51.
0-7695-2268-8/05/$20.00 (C) 2005 IEEE
10